Do different prompting methods yield a common task representation in language models?
Guy Davidson, Todd M. Gureckis, Brenden M. Lake, Adina Williams

TL;DR
This paper investigates whether different prompting methods, such as demonstrations and instructions, lead to similar task representations in language models using function vectors, revealing they activate different mechanisms.
Contribution
The study extends function vectors to various task prompts, demonstrating they activate different model components and highlighting the complexity of task representations in LLMs.
Findings
Demonstration- and instruction-based vectors leverage different model parts
Different prompts do not produce a unified task representation via FVs
Combining prompts may involve multiple, overlapping mechanisms
Abstract
Demonstrations and instructions are two primary approaches for prompting language models to perform in-context learning (ICL) tasks. Do identical tasks elicited in different ways result in similar representations of the task? An improved understanding of task representation mechanisms would offer interpretability insights and may aid in steering models. We study this through \textit{function vectors} (FVs), recently proposed as a mechanism to extract few-shot ICL task representations. We generalize FVs to alternative task presentations, focusing on short textual instruction prompts, and successfully extract instruction function vectors that promote zero-shot task accuracy. We find evidence that demonstration- and instruction-based function vectors leverage different model components, and offer several controls to dissociate their contributions to task performance. Our results suggest…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling · Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning · Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
